Promoter nucleosome dynamics regulated by signaling through the CTD code

  1. Philippe Materne
  2. Jayamani Anandhakumar
  3. Valerie Migeot
  4. Ignacio Soriano
  5. Carlo Yague-Sanz
  6. Elena Hidalgo
  7. Carole Mignion
  8. Luis Quintales
  9. Francisco Antequera
  10. Damien Hermand  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Namur, Belgium
  2. LSU Health Sciences Center, United States
  3. Universidad de Salamanca, Spain
  4. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Spain

Abstract

The phosphorylation of the RNA polymerase II CTD plays a key role in delineating transcribed regions within chromatin by recruiting histone methylases and deacetylases. Using genome-wide nucleosome mapping, we show that CTD S2 phosphorylation controls nucleosome dynamics in the promoter of a subset of 324 genes, including the regulators of cell differentiation ste11 and metabolic adaptation inv1. Mechanistic studies on these genes indicate that during gene activation a local increase of phosphoS2 CTD nearby the promoter impairs the phosphoS5 CTD dependent recruitment of Set1 and the subsequent recruitment of specific HDACs, which leads to nucleosome depletion and efficient transcription. The early increase of phosphoS2 results from the phosphorylation of the CTD S2 kinase Lsk1 by MAP kinase in response to cellular signaling. The artificial tethering of the Lsk1 kinase at the ste11 promoter is sufficient to activate transcription. Therefore, signaling through the CTD code regulates promoter nucleosomes dynamics.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Philippe Materne

    Namur Research College, University of Namur, Namur, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Jayamani Anandhakumar

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, LSU Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Valerie Migeot

    Namur Research College, University of Namur, Namur, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Ignacio Soriano

    Instituto de Biología Funcional y Genómica, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Carlo Yague-Sanz

    Namur Research College, University of Namur, Namur, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Elena Hidalgo

    Departament de Ciencies Experimentals i de la Salut, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Carole Mignion

    Namur Research College, University of Namur, Namur, Belgium
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Luis Quintales

    Instituto de Biología Funcional y Genómica, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Francisco Antequera

    Instituto de Biología Funcional y Genómica, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Damien Hermand

    Namur Research College, University of Namur, Namur, Belgium
    For correspondence
    Damien.Hermand@unamur.be
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2015, Materne et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 20
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09008

Further reading

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Gülnihal Kavaklioglu, Alexandra Podhornik ... Christian Seiser
    Research Article

    Repression of retrotransposition is crucial for the successful fitness of a mammalian organism. The domesticated transposon protein L1TD1, derived from LINE-1 (L1) ORF1p, is an RNA-binding protein that is expressed only in some cancers and early embryogenesis. In human embryonic stem cells, it is found to be essential for maintaining pluripotency. In cancer, L1TD1 expression is highly correlative with malignancy progression and as such considered a potential prognostic factor for tumors. However, its molecular role in cancer remains largely unknown. Our findings reveal that DNA hypomethylation induces the expression of L1TD1 in HAP1 human tumor cells. L1TD1 depletion significantly modulates both the proteome and transcriptome and thereby reduces cell viability. Notably, L1TD1 associates with L1 transcripts and interacts with L1 ORF1p protein, thereby facilitating L1 retrotransposition. Our data suggest that L1TD1 collaborates with its ancestral L1 ORF1p as an RNA chaperone, ensuring the efficient retrotransposition of L1 retrotransposons, rather than directly impacting the abundance of L1TD1 targets. In this way, L1TD1 might have an important role not only during early development but also in tumorigenesis.

    1. Chromosomes and Gene Expression
    Shihui Chen, Carolyn Marie Phillips
    Research Article

    RNA interference (RNAi) is a conserved pathway that utilizes Argonaute proteins and their associated small RNAs to exert gene regulatory function on complementary transcripts. While the majority of germline-expressed RNAi proteins reside in perinuclear germ granules, it is unknown whether and how RNAi pathways are spatially organized in other cell types. Here, we find that the small RNA biogenesis machinery is spatially and temporally organized during Caenorhabditis elegans embryogenesis. Specifically, the RNAi factor, SIMR-1, forms visible concentrates during mid-embryogenesis that contain an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, a poly-UG polymerase, and the unloaded nuclear Argonaute protein, NRDE-3. Curiously, coincident with the appearance of the SIMR granules, the small RNAs bound to NRDE-3 switch from predominantly CSR-class 22G-RNAs to ERGO-dependent 22G-RNAs. NRDE-3 binds ERGO-dependent 22G-RNAs in the somatic cells of larvae and adults to silence ERGO-target genes; here we further demonstrate that NRDE-3-bound, CSR-class 22G-RNAs repress transcription in oocytes. Thus, our study defines two separable roles for NRDE-3, targeting germline-expressed genes during oogenesis to promote global transcriptional repression, and switching during embryogenesis to repress recently duplicated genes and retrotransposons in somatic cells, highlighting the plasticity of Argonaute proteins and the need for more precise temporal characterization of Argonaute-small RNA interactions.